I’ve long believed the “voting for the lesser of two evils” rather than one’s conscience amounts to nothing more than a cop out and and a form of coercion.

People generally will dismiss the idea as they prefer to think of themselves as a free willed and informed voter, yet it is this very coercion that has led to what I’ve referred to as an establishment electorate.

An electorate that can be manipulated and led down the garden path while all the time believing they’ve done their civic duty and what’s best.

There are political machines in place as represented by the DNC and RNC – machines no less manipulative and coercive than Tammany Hall and Boss Tweed.

The fact that this is the 21st century and a prevailing presumption that people are so well informed, so educated as to be dupe proof lends itself to manipulations – the very idea that they as a voter could be duped is unacceptable even while commonplace.

I’ve said before I haven’t a problem with a woman president and I don’t, but not just any woman merely because she’s a woman, rather one capable of elevating the office of president.

I’ve also said Hillary Clinton ain’t the one in my opinion – Jill Stein could be but the system doesn’t operate that way and so once again this election will come down to the lesser of two evils.

It won’t matter how egregious the lies that emanate from either side nor the history of the party and convention vetted candidates.

If a candidate doesn’t have the logo of an ass or lumbering elephant affixed to their forehead the media has always dutifully gone along with party agendas – a part of that agenda is to ridicule and undermine any third party or Independent candidate, to devote the lions share of coverage to the anointed or the one with the largest war chest.

Bernie Sanders represented an opportunity to change the way political business is conducted in this country and was perceived as threat to the establishment – now it’s back to square one in the Fall and the contrived option of lesser evils.

Jill Stein offers the same opportunity as Sanders, so if it’s actually about something more than electing a woman, any woman, Stein deserves a look.

Rather than “I’m with Hillary” those whose focus is centered on electing a woman conscience should dictate “ I’m for meaningful change”.

“Hillary Clinton’s main advantage with regards to winning the nomination is not public sentiment, but instead, due to unelected superdelegates whose purpose, according to DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is to suppress grassroots candidates in favor of the establishment choice. And it looks like they will have their way: As a result of the superdelegates voting almost unanimously for Hillary Clinton, often in clear defiance of the popular will of their states, the math does indeed look bleak for Bernie Sanders to win the Democratic nomination. Barring a major grassroots revolt, Hillary Clinton will seize the nomination. And she will lose to Donald Trump.”

The above an excerpt from the below link.

Here’s the reality, super delegates are the equivalent of Boss Tweed, gerrymandering, and redistricting – a tool to impose the will of in this case the DNC and party establishment.

I believe it can truthfully be said that the Revolutionary War was a grassroots movement to overthrow British rule, and as such was representative of the will of the people.

There is a certain cache to the words grassroots movements that conjures up individualism and access, perhaps even that “American Exceptionalism” we always hear so much about, especially during campaign season or a spin is being added.

The Democratic National Committee and it’s counterpart the Republican National Committee have assumed the role of warlords, they have prioritized maintaining the two party system and their fiefdoms – any true grassroots movement or candidate is seen as a threat and dealt with as such.

The mainstream media rides shotgun for them, not by conscription but as a volunteer army of minions.

So tell me, in a “democratic” society that flaunts the apparent misnomer of reflective representation how do you feel in knowing a select group of individuals can ignore and override your vote?

Perhaps the only redeeming value, and I use the word loosely when it comes to the RNC and Republican Party, is that they don’t have super delegates – but then maybe they believe it isn’t necessary when they have individuals like the Koch brothers who purchase politicians and influence elections and legislation with money.

Personally I happen to agree that if Hillary Clinton and Trump are the nominees Clinton will lose – she’s way to vulnerable with her late to the race declaration of being a reformer/progressive and carries a heavy burden, everything from Wall Street, “mis speaking” often, and statements like she doesn’t believe Glass Steagall needs to be reinstated.

Romney came very close to winning the previous election and public sentiment is such that the electorate is fed up with establishment party hacks …… that’s Mitt Romney, think about that for a moment.

Politicians can proclaim their candidacy a grassroots movement all they like if they believe it will resonate, yet the reality is in the current election cycle there are only two such movements – those of Sanders and Trump.

A simple choice I believe, either vote for a loud mouthed pathological liar like Trump or a man who has been a consistent champion of the people throughout his career and life like Sanders.

The third option I suppose would be to allow an establishment entity decide who they want to be president.

Having spoken previously about the growing number of indigenous sites, which I’m pleased to see, it strikes me that some are beginning to look like a PAC -a political action committee-testing the waters, floating words like leader, and making sure the results of photo ops are duly exhibited.

An “exploratory committee” if you will, like the one Banks announced a while back related to tribal leadership at Leech Lake, only to discover people didn’t exactly have that deer caught in the headlights look upon the announcement.

The advantage of having your own site in the political arena is the exposure it affords- in the digital age politicians have become acutely aware of this.

Not only can you control the conversation, but to a degree create the issues as well, and publish glowing reports about yourself.

Rallies designated for any purpose can also be turned to a candidates advantage merely by putting in an appearance or attaching their name as an organizer or sponsor.

They also present an opportunity to kiss the babies, hug grandmother, and present that human side-that man or woman of the people thing.

Associations and endorsements are what politicians scramble for-“celebrities” are a must have and require reciprocity-they expect to have input, especially if they are organizational celebrities.

I’d be the last to say the nations don’t need leaders, but I would qualify that by saying we need the kind of leadership that doesn’t seek to be front page, that neither seeks nor desires AIM’s endorsement, pro active leadership willing to confront and deal with ALL the issues.

The kind of leaders that would be raising hell when a young mother is killed and children are left orphaned, when a woman is raped, or a child is abused. The kind of leaders that would address gangs and crime instead of making excuses for them.

AIM isn’t Boss Tweed, neither the candidates or results of elections on the rez should come from Tammany Hall.

Until the time when a leader or leaders such as this arise all we will have is business as usual and pretenders to the throne verbally wrapping themselves in the blanket of the nations.